The Democratic Party of today is far more progressive than it was even just a decade ago. And if you look at the recent Democratic politicians who have been elected into office - especially the younger ones - you’ll see that they are staunchly progressive. I think in ten more years we will only see the Democratic Party move further to the left. The voters you describe are more likely to oscillate between Democrats and Republicans depending on which side of the political spectrum they identify with more. Voting is more identity than it is philosophy in the modern era. In the *far* future (20-40 years ish) I wouldn’t be surprised to see the parties more split on capitalism vs socialism (or at least what the Bernie wing calls Scandinavian social democracy) rather than liberal vs conservative. Polling of younger generations would seem to bear this out.

At that time I suppose Republicans would accept or even actively propose government programs that are popular but don’t upset the economic status quo, while Democrats would be pushing for a wider nationalization of the economy. Quite like Conservative vs. Labour in post WW2 UK.

Not even close to being true, name one left-wing accomplishment that the Democrats have accomplished within the last 10 years.

No.

I can see there being a fiscally moderate(although I definitely wouldn't call them full on fiscal con) wing consisting of the Gottheimer's and Carper's of the world, but I doubt they would take over the party. As for wealthy suburbanites joining the party, you have to remember that: 1. The suburbanites that joined the party previously in the 90's and 00's would eventually convert to fiscal liberalism in varying manners 2. New migrants and younger people in these suburbs are generally fiscally liberal to begin with. I think the whole "Republicans and Democrats will switch on fiscal ideologies" idea many seem to propose online is super short sighted and ignorant of what's currently happening, as well as what history shows us. I can see the GOP accepting certain measures down the line, but I just cannot see them going full on Universal Healthcare or something like that without their feet dragging along the way.

Are the Democrats that joined during the Clinton years closer to AOC or Gottheimer on economics? What will happen when the younger, more left-wing populist generation of Democrats eventually take control of the party? How will these suburban voters react, assuming the GOP is smart enough to make a serious play for these voters?

As for your first point, it's mainly a false dichotomy, since most of these voters from what I've noticed essentially hold the standard party line on economics barring a few issues such as SNAP benefits. But as for the GOP eventually siphoning off these voters, they would have to change their rhetoric so much that it would be unrecognizable to the party we see today, especially on social issues.

So if it was Bernie vs. Jeb! instead of Hillary vs. Trump in 2016, the suburbs won’t shift much because these suburbanites already agree with Bernie more than they agree with Jeb?

Sorry for the late response, but I agree they wouldn't have shifted that much in a Jeb/Bernie match, but that's mainly due to perception. Without Trump and Bernie being the Dem nominee, the suburban shift wouldn't be as pronounced, but it would have likely still occurred eventually. Also Bernie probably would have maintained a significant amount of Obama's gains in NoVa, The Denver suburbs, and the Vegas area in particular.

There is hope among Republicans that they will somehow siphon off urban working-class voters who they believe are socially conservative. Is that hope misplaced or is it a real possibility? If the GOP indeed becomes a socially conservative fiscally liberal party, would it be able to fulfill some populists’ vision of a multiracial working-class party? What is the best hope for Republicans besides maxing out rural turnout?

The idea that socially conservative WWC urban voters who haven't already shifted to the GOP are prominent is a bit of an overestimation. The WWC voters who mainly remain with Dems at this point are either socially liberal or apathetic to social issues in favor of fiscal policy. Not to say the GOP are maxed out with this group. Most definitely not. But they shouldn't expect to gain these voters super easily. As for minority working class voters, it's kind of the same story, although it's a bit more complicated. Hispanic and Asian WC voters especially are susceptible, but apart from a few swing states they wouldn't really make too much of a difference. They also have differing dynamics on race relations.

Where would the suburbs and urban working class neighborhoods shift if, for example, the Democrats become more progressive and the Republicans somehow moderate themselves? Could a Glenn Youngkin keep the RGV and Miami-Dade competitive while also flipping Tarrant County back to solid red, for example, against a more progressive Democrat? How would he do in, for example, suburban Atlanta?

Did these suburban voters shift to the left economically because of economic concerns like cost of housing, etc in the early 21st century? Or was it because the booming Clinton economy solidified their views of Democrat economic policy?

It's not happening and we should really stop pretending it is

We finally figured out why Republicans are red on maps

It’s unlikely. In fact if anything the opposite is happening. Even young republicans are noticeably fiscally more liberal than older moderate democrats.

Doesn’t that show exactly that Republicans are becoming more fiscally liberal?

Yes but the democrats aren’t triangulating to the right; if anything they shifted farther left fiscally. It’s more of a generational thing.

This topic is kinda weird because, while educational polarization has given Democrats wealthier voters who would be more prone to being poor/terrible on class, the voters they're replacing weren't so economically left-wing as they were/are populist-protectionist, and the Democratic party of the 2000s and 2010s relied heavily on outright republican voters in the south who still split their tickets for Democrats as if the party switch never happened, and the people they elected were to the right of Sinema and way to the right of people like Golden, MGP, Tester, etc so the party is significantly more progressive than it used to be. IMO there is more potential for this than there used to be among Democratic voters, but less among Democratic politicians. ​ That being said there is no timeline where the Progressive voters don't leave the Democrats without first spending decades of their time with democrats not representing them like the GOP didn't represent black voters from 1920-1964, and I also think this also makes it way more unlikely that the Democrats drift right as all the main demographics of the modern progressive movement were either banned from voting (black people), virtually irrelevant nationwide pre-1960s (hispanic people) or way less common (college educated people in all income brackets) than they are today, so Democrats can't just have a lily-white movement in their party like the 19th century GOP did without half the party electorate saying no.

I think both parties are shifting to the left fiscally at least a bit. Fiscal conservatism is sort of a dying ideology.

The Democrats have thoroughly embraced MMT and ultra-Keynesianism so the odds of that happening are basically none. Edit: Also MMT and Keynesianism are not left-wing economic ideologies by any reasonable definition. Their primary purpose is to bail out the corporations NOT to help the average person.

Worst political party imaginable